This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the FAQ and RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate and remove the ads - it's free!

Re: Syria vs. Iraq

Originally Posted by aberrant85

How's it ideologically inconsistent? I was opposed to invading Iraq because it was basically a manufactured crisis, Saddam had been tamed for years and was not a pressing threat, and it was forced on the US, the UK, and the world based on cherry-picked and unreliable information pushed by Neoconservative extremists.

I support responding to Assad's use of chemical weapons because it's a real, present, and ongoing threat, he provoked us to respond after we warned him not to, and the information seems to be vetted reliably from multiple sources.

I'm an interventionist when there's humanitarian issues at stake, the threat of not responding to aggression is worse than responding rationally to it, and there is a reasonable chance at achieving the objectives of an intervention. I'm convinced on the first two points, not sure one way or the other on the last point.

Feel free to press me on my stance.

Ummm when did he actuall attack the US. I do not recall?? No we should not be messing around in Syria unless you want another 1 trillion wasted and 10 years of war. This war is as stupid as Iraq, Nam, Korea! We have no right to attack Syria, let them solve the problem which will never happen

Re: Syria vs. Iraq

Originally Posted by Ikari

...so who the hell elected us God then? We can't let it be left to fascistic dictators...as we turn America into a fascist state. We are not Syrian, we have not proper say in their government. End of story. Before running around playing god of the world, I think that we should take care of our own house.

You want to know the truth? Both parties elected us God, or at least the sole superpower charged with maintaining world order. That's important.

We have a higher military budget than the next 10 countries combined. We don't need it, but neither party is willing to cut it back to a reasonable level, 'cause everyone loves being the strongest nation in the world.

But despite our enormous military, it wouldn't do us citizens a lick of good if a country decided to send a nuke our way. We have no missile defense and couldn't scramble a jet in time if we wanted to. We'd be dead, all we could hope for is to kill a bunch of them with us. So what good is our military? They'll say it's as a deterrent, to keep other countries from exerting their influence over parts of the world, and to deter our enemies from launching a war with us.

But the fact that we have such a huge military means that our allies don't need one themselves, nor do we want them to. That means that even if they wanted to step into to a conflict in their neighborhood, like Syria, that they wouldn't have the means to.

For better or worse, we have told the world not to arm themselves, because we've got it. Then a situation like Syria comes along and the whole country says we should stay out of it. But we refuse to cut back our military and make others pick up the slack, 'cause then we wouldn't be as powerful.

That's just a selfish, arrogant attitude. I'll abdicate our country's responsibility in these matters once we've give up some of our power, but then everyone will have to accept the risks of not always being the biggest kid on the playground.

Re: Syria vs. Iraq

I supported the invasion in Iraq. I was 16 at the time and didn't have very developed political opinions. There's also the faulty intelligence issue. By a year or two later I thought the whole thing was a giant mess.

I have strong feelings both ways on Syria. I'm mostly angry at the international community for not being serious about its prohibitions. Why is it the U.S.'s job to enforce these norms, making ourselves enemy #1 of the arab world while we're at it for our constant intervention? I feel these rules are important, so generally I don't oppose a strike, but it is beyond frustrating that we are going to have to largely do it alone, and who knows who we will ultimately be helping, and what if these chemical weapons get into the hands of terrorists (either because Assad gets angry and gives them some or those who take over get them)?

Re: Syria vs. Iraq

Originally Posted by aberrant85

You want to know the truth? Both parties elected us God, or at least the sole superpower charged with maintaining world order. That's important.

We have a higher military budget than the next 10 countries combined. We don't need it, but neither party is willing to cut it back to a reasonable level, 'cause everyone loves being the strongest nation in the world.

But despite our enormous military, it wouldn't do us citizens a lick of good if a country decided to send a nuke our way. We have no missile defense and couldn't scramble a jet in time if we wanted to. We'd be dead, all we could hope for is to kill a bunch of them with us. So what good is our military? They'll say it's as a deterrent, to keep other countries from exerting their influence over parts of the world, and to deter our enemies from launching a war with us.

But the fact that we have such a huge military means that our allies don't need one themselves, nor do we want them to. That means that even if they wanted to step into to a conflict in their neighborhood, like Syria, that they wouldn't have the means to.

For better or worse, we have told the world not to arm themselves, because we've got it. Then a situation like Syria comes along and the whole country says we should stay out of it. But we refuse to cut back our military and make others pick up the slack, 'cause then we wouldn't be as powerful.

That's just a selfish, arrogant attitude. I'll abdicate our country's responsibility in these matters once we've give up some of our power, but then everyone will have to accept the risks of not always being the biggest kid on the playground.

You can't have it both ways.

So kill more Americans for corporate greed, for the sake of our politicians, for 10+ more years of war. When can we be done? How much American blood is enough?

You know the time is right to take control, we gotta take offense against the status quo

Originally Posted by A. de Tocqueville

"I should have loved freedom, I believe, at all times, but in the time in which we live I am ready to worship it."

Re: Syria vs. Iraq

I'm interested in who supported the intervention in one instance, but not the other. I'd consider that ideologically inconsistent, BTW.

While so far they are not the same, I oppose both.

AUSTAN GOOLSBEE:I think the world vests too much power, certainly in the president, probably in Washington in general for its influence on the economy, because most all of the economy has nothing to do with the government.

Re: Syria vs. Iraq

I did not so much as support war with Iraq but was resigned to it given that Iraq seemed likely to have chemical weapons and Saddam tried to kill "Daddy".
And I oppose attacking military targets in Syria without a solid direct US interest in doing so.

An Enlightened Master is ideal only if your goal is to become a Benighted Slave. -- Robert Anton Wilson